RENT CONTROL IS THE QUESTION

Prop. E will go before Oceanside voters next month

Proposition E ballot language:

Shall Ordinance No. 11-OR0427-1, adding Section 16B16(e) to the Oceanside City Code for the purpose of implementing vacancy decontrol allowing space rents to increase following the sale or conveyance of a manufactured home, be adopted?

Some of the homes at the Mira Mar Mobile Home Community in Oceanside. The community would be affected by Prop. E. Eduardo Contreras • U-T

Some of the homes at the Mira Mar Mobile Home Community in Oceanside. The community would be affected by Prop. E. Eduardo Contreras • U-T

Oceanside  It’s nearly impossible to visit Oceanside without being bombarded with conflicting messages from signs for or against Proposition E.

The measure would change the city’s mobile home park rent control regulations by putting in place vacancy decontrol.

The city’s rent control ordinance now protects those who live in mobile home parks. It was enacted in 1984, and holds rent for spaces to increasing at 75 percent of the consumer price index annually.

Vacancy decontrol would allow current tenants to keep the rent protection, but would allow mobile home park owners and managers to raise rents to whatever price they would like once the homes change hands.

In most cases, mobile home park tenants own the coach they live in, but rent the land on which it rests.

The main problems, many tenants say, is a loss in the value of the home without the guarantee of low rents and the fear that their rent will not actually remain low, as promised in the ordinance. The landowners say vacancy decontrol provides a balance, allowing them to get a fair return on their land and making mobile home parks more stable.

Rent control, the park owners argue, transfers the value of their land to the tenant and unfairly deprives them of rents they would receive at fair market value.

The proposition will be on the June 5 ballot alongside Proposition F, which would amend the city charter to change how elections are conducted in the city.

How Proposition E made the ballot

The nearly 30-year-old rent control ordinance has been divisive since its inception. A Superior Court judge ruled it unconstitutional soon after it was enacted, but the 4th District Court of Appeal reversed that decision in 1984. It was a campaign issue the same year.

A City Council majority of Councilmen Jerome Kern, Gary Felien and Jack Feller voted on May 26, 2011, to adopt vacancy decontrol. Dozens of mobile home park residents attended that meeting, and have attended many since, to protest the ordinance. Once it was adopted, a coalition of mobile home park tenants and other community groups, such as the Alliance of Citizens to Improve Oceanside Neighborhoods, or ACTION, took to the streets to block vacancy decontrol with a referendum.

A successful referendum needed about 7,670 signatures from Oceanside voters. More than 15,000 were gathered and turned in to the city clerk June 23, before the ordinance took effect.

The referendum forced a decision on the City Council: either repeal the ordinance completely or place the matter on the ballot for a public vote. The same council majority opted for the public vote and set aside $93,000 from a reserve fund to cover the cost of the election.

The case for vacancy decontrol

The arguments for and against vacancy decontrol are, at their roots, a matter of property rights. The park owners hold the land, while the homeowners own the coaches. At issue is how the value should be divided.